Re: meaningless data (was: Relations as Repeating Groups & Namespaces)

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:40c246d1$0$48959$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
> Hugo Kornelis wrote:
>
> > No, I'm not attracted to Nijssen's "kenniskunde" (how on earth would one
> > translate THAT in English?) at all.
>
> Knowledgeology?
>
> > ... are you even implying that
> > there are people here who think (gasp!!) that the information in a
> > database doesn't need to mean anything to it's users?
>
> Yes. Gasp indeed. When people discuss data in the context
> of database, they are talking of something with meaning.
> At least, that is what I thought until
>
> > x wrote:
> >>> Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data ,
> >>> under meaning of data and information,
> >>> say "data on its own has no meaning".
> >
> > <quote>
> > Data on its own has no meaning, only
> > when interpreted by some kind of data
> > processing system does it take on
> > meaning and become information.
> > </quote>
>
> No source of this statement was mentioned at wikipedia.
>
> I was even more amazed when I found that this statement
> is copied all over the web. People will think this is an
> accepted way of using the term 'data'.
>
> I am not an acknowledged guru
> who could barge in at wikipedia and say: Hey guys,
> you got it all wrong, your understanding of data
> and information stinks.
> I should at least be able to offer a better description.
>
> So I asked c.d.theory what to think of it.
> (Thread: It don't mean a thing...)
> news://news.xs4all.nl:119/40bc8896$0$36861$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl
>
> In the meantime I did create an account at
> wikipedia. I'll try to find out how things work there.
> As soon as I feel up to it (your comments may help)
> I'll try opening a discussion there to get that
> statement reconsidered.

I traveled to a Barnes and Nobel yesterday (I used to have one 12 minutes from my house, but now an hour away!) and read bits and pieces from variety of books. Several books, not just one, gave some statement about how informaiton was data + meaning (saying it in various ways). I'd be willing to say it is "data + person's interpretation thereof" but somehow this "data has no meaning" idea has caught on. I think we should put it in the cdt glossary with a more acceptable def of what data are. I'll leave it to you to pick or write such a definition. Cheers! --dawn Received on Sun Jun 06 2004 - 03:08:32 CEST